DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/19/2025, 05/21/2025, 03/27/2026 and 06/19/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “current through the sets coils” when it should read as “current through the sets of coils”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The recited structure of the magnet is unclear, the claimed location of the magnet is unclear as no reference point is defined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 11 and 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iwata [JP2013206635A], applicant cited prior art.
Claim 1, Iwata discloses a magnet [20] comprising: an assembly comprising: (i) sets of coils [51/63; paragraphs 0017 and 0022] for conducting current to produce a magnetic field, and (ii) a support structure [61; paragraph 0022] on which the sets of coils are disposed asymmetrically [see distribution of coils 51/62 as shown in figure 3; paragraph 0101]; and a ferromagnetic yoke [52; paragraphs 0017 and 0019] surrounding part of the assembly, the ferromagnetic yoke and the assembly being bent [figure 2; paragraphs 0015 and 0017].
Claim 2, Iwata discloses the magnet of claim 1, wherein the sets of coils comprise a first coil [51a(01) located on 61a] and a second coil [51a(22) located on 61b], the first coil and the second coil for conducting current to produce a magnetic field, the first coil and the second coil being disposed on the support structure [61] asymmetrically in a first hemisphere [61a] of the magnet such that a first spacing between the first coil and the second coil in a first quadrant of the magnet is different from a second spacing between the first coil and the second coil in a second quadrant of the magnet [asymmetrical coil arrangement; paragraph 0101], the first quadrant and the second quadrant being within the first hemisphere [figure 2]; wherein the sets of coils comprise a third coil [51a(01) located on 61b] and a fourth coil [51a(22) located on 61b], the third coil and the fourth coil for conducting current to produce a magnetic field, the third coil and the fourth coil being disposed on the support structure asymmetrically in a second hemisphere of the magnet such that a third spacing between the third coil and the fourth coil in a third quadrant of the magnet is different from a fourth spacing between the third coil and the fourth coil in a fourth quadrant of the magnet [asymmetrical coil arrangement; paragraph 0101], the third quadrant and the fourth quadrant being within the second hemisphere; and wherein an asymmetry of the first and second coils in the first and second quadrants, respectively, mirrors an asymmetry of the third and fourth coils in the third and fourth quadrants, respectively [figure 5B].
Claim 11, Iwata discloses the magnet of claim 1, wherein the ferromagnetic yoke [52] comprises iron and wherein the support structure is non-ferromagnetic [paragraph 0019].
Claim 24, Iwata a system comprising: a gantry comprising a beamline structure configured to direct a particle beam that is monoenergetic from an output of a particle accelerator towards an irradiation target, the beamline structure comprising bending magnets to bend the particle beam along a length of the beamline structure [paragraphs 0093, 0146]; wherein at least one of the bending magnets comprises the magnet of claim 1.
Claims 1-7, 11, 18, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Farinon et al., "The Design of Superconducting Separation Dipoles D2 for the High Luminosity Upgrade of LHC”, applicant cited prior art.
Claim 1, Farinon et al. discloses a magnet [figures 1, 2 and 6] comprising: an assembly comprising: (i) sets of coils [Windings] for conducting current to produce a magnetic field, and (ii) a support structure [Collars] on which the sets of coils are disposed asymmetrically [figure 2]; and a ferromagnetic yoke [Iron yoke] surrounding part of the assembly [figure 1], the ferromagnetic yoke and the assembly being bent [Section II, paragraph 0003].
Claim 2, Farinon et al. discloses the magnet of claim 1, wherein the sets of coils comprise a first coil and a second coil [5 sets of windings are shown in figure 2, each separated by a different distance], the first coil and the second coil for conducting current to produce a magnetic field, the first coil and the second coil being disposed on the support structure asymmetrically [figure 2] in a first hemisphere [figure 2 only shows the upper half/hemisphere of the magnet] of the magnet such that a first spacing [inner radius] between the first coil and the second coil in a first quadrant [left half of figure 2] of the magnet is different from a second spacing [outer radius] between the first coil and the second coil in a second quadrant [right half of figure 2] of the magnet, the first quadrant and the second quadrant being within the first hemisphere [figure 2]; wherein the sets of coils comprise a third coil and a fourth coil [not shown, mirror image of figure 2], the third coil and the fourth coil for conducting current to produce a magnetic field, the third coil and the fourth coil being disposed on the support structure asymmetrically in a second hemisphere [second hemisphere not show, it would be the same as figure 2 mirrored] of the magnet such that a third spacing between the third coil and the fourth coil in a third quadrant [left half of mirrored figure 2] of the magnet is different from a fourth spacing between the third coil and the fourth coil in a fourth quadrant [right half of mirrored figure 2] of the magnet, the third quadrant and the fourth quadrant being within the second hemisphere; and wherein an asymmetry of the first and second coils in the first and second quadrants, respectively, mirrors an asymmetry of the third and fourth coils in the third and fourth quadrants, respectively [figure 2 along with mirrored figure 2].
PNG
media_image1.png
619
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 3, Farinon et al. discloses the magnet of claim 2, wherein the first spacing [inner radius between the first and second coils] and the third spacing [inner radius between the third and fourth coils] are equal [figure 2, mirroring the top hemisphere will produce the same spacing on the bottom hemisphere], the second spacing [outer radius between the first and second coils] and the fourth spacing [outer radius between the third and fourth coils] are equal [figure 2, mirroring the top hemisphere will produce the same spacing], and the first spacing and the third spacing] are less than the second spacing and the fourth spacing; and wherein the first spacing and the third spacing are at an inner bend radius of the assembly and the second spacing and the fourth spacing are at an outer bend radius of the assembly [figure 2].
Claim 4, Farinon et al. discloses the magnet of claim 3, wherein the sets of coils comprise a fifth coil and a sixth coil [figure 2; each hemisphere has 5 coils irregularly spaced], the fifth coil and the sixth coil for conducting current to produce a magnetic field, the fifth coil being disposed on the support structure in the first hemisphere and the sixth coil being disposed on the support structure in the second hemisphere [figure 2]; wherein a fifth spacing [inner radius between the fifth and second coils] between the fifth coil and an adjacent one of the first or second coils in the first quadrant is different than a sixth spacing [outer radius between the fifth and second coils] between the fifth coil and an adjacent one of the first or second coils in the second quadrant [figure 2]; wherein a seventh spacing [inner radius between the sixth and fourth coils] between the sixth coil and an adjacent one of the third or fourth coils in the third quadrant is different than an eighth spacing [outer radius between the sixth and fourth coils] between the sixth coil and an adjacent one of the third or fourth coils in the fourth quadrant; and wherein an asymmetry of the first, second, and fifth coils in the first and second quadrants, respectively, mirrors an asymmetry of the third, fourth, and sixth coils in the third and fourth quadrants, respectively [figure 2 along with mirrored figure 2].
Claim 5, Farinon et al. discloses the magnet of claim 4, wherein the fifth spacing [inner radius between the fifth and second coils] and the seventh spacing [inner radius between the sixth and fourth coils] are equal [figure 2, mirroring the top hemisphere will produce the same spacing on the bottom hemisphere], the sixth spacing [outer radius between the fifth and second coils] and the eighth spacing [outer radius between the sixth and fourth coils] are equal , and the fifth spacing and the seventh spacing are less than the sixth spacing and the eighth spacing [figure 2]; and wherein the fifth spacing and the seventh spacing are at the inner bend radius of the assembly and the sixth spacing and the eighth spacing are at the outer bend radius of the assembly [figure 2 along with mirrored figure 2].
Claim 6, Farinon et al. discloses the magnet of claim 5, wherein the sets of coils comprise a seventh coil and an eighth coil [figure 2; each hemisphere has 5 coils irregularly spaced], the seventh coil and the eighth coil for conducting current to produce a magnetic field, the seventh coil being disposed on the support structure in the first hemisphere [figure 2] and the eighth coil being disposed on the support structure in the second hemisphere [figure 2 mirrored]; wherein a ninth spacing [inner radius between the seventh and fifth coils] between the seventh coil and an adjacent one of the first, second, or fifth coils in the first quadrant [figure 2] is different than a tenth spacing [outer radius between the seventh and fifth coils] between the seventh coil and an adjacent one of the first, second, or fifth coils in the second quadrant [figure 2]; wherein an eleventh spacing [inner radius between the eighth and sixth coils] between the eighth coil and an adjacent one of the third, fourth, or sixth coils in the third [figure 2] quadrant is different than a twelfth spacing [outer radius between the eighth and sixth coils] between the eighth coil and an adjacent one of the third, fourth, or sixth coils in the fourth quadrant; and wherein an asymmetry of the first, second, fifth, and seventh coils in the first and second quadrants, respectively, mirrors an asymmetry of the third, fourth, sixth, and eighth coils in the third and fourth quadrants, respectively [figure 2 along with mirrored figure 2].
Claim 7, Farinon et al. discloses the magnet of claim 6, wherein the ninth spacing [inner radius between the seventh and fifth coils] and the eleventh spacing [inner radius between the eighth and fifth sixth] are equal [figure 2 and mirrored figure 2], the tenth spacing [outer radius between the seventh and fifth coils] and the twelfth spacing [outer radius between the eighth and fifth sixth] are equal [figure 2 and figure 2 mirrored], and the ninth spacing and the eleventh spacing are less than the tenth spacing and the twelfth spacing; and wherein the ninth spacing and the eleventh spacing are at the inner bend radius of the assembly and the tenth spacing and the twelfth spacing are at the outer bend radius of the assembly [figure 2 and figure 2 mirrored].
Claim 11, Farinon et al. discloses the magnet of claim 1, wherein the ferromagnetic yoke comprises iron; and wherein the support structure is non-ferromagnetic [Section IV, paragraph 0001].
Claim 18, Farinon et al. discloses the magnet of claim 1, wherein the sets of coils are configured for dipole functionality [abs; description of figure 1]; or wherein the sets of coils are configured for quadrupole functionality; or wherein the sets of coils are configured for sextupole functionality.
Claim 21, Farinon et al. discloses the magnet of claim 1, wherein the sets of coils comprise superconducting material [abs].
Claim 23, Farinon et al. discloses the magnet of claim 1, wherein the sets of coils comprise two or more sets of coils that are configured asymmetrically relative to a first dimension [left/right, see annotated figure] and symmetrically relative to a second dimension [up/down], the first dimension being perpendicular to the second dimension.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farinon et al., "The Design of Superconducting Separation Dipoles D2 for the High Luminosity Upgrade of LHC”, applicant cited prior art.
Claim 8, Farinon et al. discloses the magnet of claim 2, wherein the ferromagnetic yoke [Iron yoke] comprises notches [not labeled, see figure 1] adjacent to the assembly, but fails to teach the notches being asymmetric in the first quadrant and the second quadrant, where an asymmetry of the notches is with respect to at least one of a size, shape, or placing of the notches; and wherein an asymmetry of the notches in the third and fourth quadrants, respectively, mirrors an asymmetry of the notches in the first and second quadrants, respectively.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the shape of the notches in the individual quadrants in order to vary the resulting magnetic field, since applicant has not disclosed that recited notch arrangement solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwata [JP2013206635A], applicant cited prior art, in view of Nishimura [US 10,143,436].
Claim 12, Iwata discloses the magnet is bent by an undisclosed degree [figure 2] relative to a straight line passing through a center of an unbent part of the magnet.
Nishimura teaches a bending magnet [3], wherein the magnet is bent by 60° or more relative to a straight line passing through a center of an unbent part of the magnet [figure 1, disclose that the bending magnet can be made to different angles such as 90 and 45 degrees].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the degree to which the magnet of Iwata is bent as taught by Nishimura in order to direct the beam along the desired path
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farinon et al., "The Design of Superconducting Separation Dipoles D2 for the High Luminosity Upgrade of LHC”, applicant cited prior art, in view of Jones 20170199506
Claim 22, Farinon et al. discloses the magnet of claim 1, with the exception of one or more magnetic shims [730; figures 22 and 23] that are movable relative to the magnetic yoke to change a magnetic field produced by the magnet.
Jones teaches a magnet comprising one or more magnetic shims that are movable relative to a magnetic yoke [731a/731b; paragraph 0155] to change a magnetic field produced by the magnet [paragraph 0155].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the shims of Jones in the magnet of Farinon et al. in order to adjust the shape of the magnetic field [paragraph 0155-0156].
Claims 12, 24, 27, 30, 37 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farinon et al., "The Design of Superconducting Separation Dipoles D2 for the High Luminosity Upgrade of LHC”, applicant cited prior art, in view of Nishimura [US 10143436]
Claim 12, Farinon et al. discloses the magnet is bent by an undisclosed degree [Section II, paragraph 0003] relative to a straight line passing through a center of an unbent part of the magnet.
Nishimura teaches a bending magnet [3], wherein the magnet is bent by 60° or more relative to a straight line passing through a center of an unbent part of the magnet [figure 1, disclose that the bending magnet can be made to different angles such as 90 and 45 degrees].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the degree to which the magnet of Iwata is bent as taught by Farinon et al. in order to direct the beam along the desired path
Claim 24, Farinon et al. discloses the bending magnets comprises the magnet of claim 1 but fails to teach its use in a system comprising: a gantry comprising a beamline structure configured to direct a particle beam that is monoenergetic from an output of a particle accelerator towards an irradiation target, the beamline structure comprising bending magnets to bend the particle beam along a length of the beamline structure.
Nishimura teaches a system [100] comprising: a gantry [col. 4 lines 44-50] comprising a beamline structure [6] configured to direct a particle beam that is monoenergetic from an output of a particle accelerator [2] towards an irradiation target [figure 1], the beamline structure comprising bending magnets [3] to bend the particle beam along a length of the beamline structure [figure 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the system of Nishimura with the magnet of Nishimura in order to direct the output of the magnets to a desired target location.
Claim 27, Farinon et al. as modified discloses the system of claim 24, wherein Farinon et al. further discloses that the at least one bending magnet comprises a magnet having a magnetic field of 2.5 Tesla (T) or more; or wherein the at least one bending magnet comprises a magnet having a magnetic field of 3 Tesla (T) or more {higher than 3.5T, abs, Section I, paragraph 0002 and Section II, paragraph 0002].
Claim 30, Farinon et al. as modified discloses the system of claim 24, wherein Nishimura teaches that the gantry comprises a support structure configured to move part of the beamline structure in a circular path around the irradiation target [motor to rotate the gantry; col. 4 lines 44-50]; and wherein the support structure has a dimension that is 6 meters or less.
Claim 37, Farinon et al. as modified discloses the system of claim 24, wherein Nishimura teaches that the beamline structure [6] comprises an output channel [to irradiation 102] comprising at least some of the bending magnets [3], the at least one bending magnet preceding the output channel in a direction of travel of the particle beam [figure 1].
Claim 38, Farinon et al. as modified discloses the claimed invention except for gantry is an achromat from an entry point of a particle beam into the gantry to an isocenter of the system. It would have been an obvious matter of design to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the claimed gantry type, since applicant has not disclosed that a gantry is an achromat from an entry point of a particle beam into the gantry to an isocenter of the system solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bernard Rojas whose telephone number is (571)272-1998. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. thru Fri. 7:00 am - 4:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shawki S Ismail can be reached at (571) 272-3985. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BERNARD ROJAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights